Sunday, March 26, 2006
Jim Lindgren is much nicer than I would be, but then I probably suffer from all those nasty personality traits that we are said to suffer. JIm delicately makes the point, that I should think was obvious, that in order to make generalizations about conservatives outside of your sample, your sample of them has to be representative. The small number of future conservative kids in -- get this -- the nursery school for kids and staff at Berkeley, and a co-op nursery in the same place are, just a wild guess here, probably not representative of, let's see, more than half of the voting population of the United States, who were conservative enough to have supported the dreaded W.
I'm just an unfrozen caveman who became a law professor, but I would think that to make generalizations about all conservatives in this brave land of ours, you should have, gosh, at least several hundred, maybe even a few thousand, little could-be future conservatives. I would not want them all to be coming from a nursery school with a picture of Che on the wall, or the 92nd St Y in New York, or the all Bible Jesus God school in Snakebite, Arkansas either. For goodness sake, we're talking about human nature here, or at least something as grand as human psychology and its relation to politics. But anyway, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Lindgren for staying calm long enough to politely dismantle the ridiculous claim that you can figure out the psychology of conservatism by studying a few much to be pitied children in the co-op nursery in Berkeley CA. It's a wonder those kids are as sane as they are. Maybe the lesson is, if your kid is a future conservative, don't send him to a place like that, or he is likely to feel persecuted for the rest of his life. Maybe they should study future conservative kids in Utah, and see if they turned out so poorly.
HERE is Jim's earlier post, and it is gratifyingly hard hitting.